Appeal No. 2003-0289
Application No. 09/234,702 Page 12
We turn next to the rejection of claims 5-7 and 12-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chennakeshu in view of
Sherman and Diekelman. However, the addition of Diekelman
provides no teaching or suggestion to overcome the deficiencies
of Chennakeshu and Sherman with respect to the independent claims
1 and 8 as discussed, supra. We therefore find that the
teachings of Chennakeshu, Sherman and Diekelman fail to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 5-7 and 12-14.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 5-7 and 12-14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007